Maybe I am being dense, but I really don't understand what you are asking for.

If you are doing a 10-pt grayscale to have to adjust each of the 10 points individually. You decide on what changes to make based on how each point measures. How is it "more efficient" to see what the RGB balance is at 20% when you are adjusting 70%? How you adjust 70% or whether you adjust it at all is not affected by the 20% reading.

If you are doing a 2-pt grayscale, the same point applies. You have to go back and forth between each individually until both are correct. How one measures does not affect how the other is adjusted.

Finally, in any case you do see all of the points together in the pre/post calibration grayscale modules. I just don't understand what functionality you are asking for, much less what benefit would be gained if you had it.

Please provide a specific "for instance."
Reading between the lines the only thing I can think of is that you want the ability to make real-time adjustments in the post-calibration grayscale module (pre-calibration is just for reporting purposes and stays unchanged after the initial set of readings), rather than doing it in the white balance or gamma modules. If that is all, then it would simply be a matter of including a continuous reading option in the post-calibration grayscale module, which would be very simple to do.
As to "why ChromaPure was designed this way", it is based on the model that pre and post calibration states are for reporting only, and that all calibration activity is done separately. That's why the menu is divided into Pre-Calibration, Calibration, and Post-Calibration sections. HCFR has no reporting at all, so doing this wouldn't have made sense for them. The calibration section is where all of the work is done. Continuous readings are available and the data is not persistent. Only the data necessary for reporting is saved. This seemed to me at the time--and still seems--a logical approach.
However, I am always open to suggestions.

Let's say I'm using 2-pt controls to flatten out RGB tracking from 10% to 100% (or 20% to 100%). If I want to see the effect increasing the red high end control has on the whole grayscale, I cannot do this without going to the post-cal grayscale module. Otherwise, I need to view one step at a time in the white balance or gamma modules. With ColorHCFR or CalMAN, I only need to take another grayscale run and I can see the whole grayscale update (and then decide what changes to make next). Being able to see the whole grayscale at once helps you see the big picture when using 2-pt and/or 10-pt controls and avoids the need to check each step, one by one. I don't see why this is not a part of ChromaPure or the argument for not including it.

2-pt controls obviously effect more than one point at a time and even 10-pt controls can affect surrounding steps on some displays. My point here being that grayscale controls can affect more than a single grayscale step at a time and being able to take another full set of grayscale readings and see the whole grayscale at once can save time and be more convenient than having to manually go through the steps and see only one point at a time.

Let's say I'm using 2-pt controls to flatten out RGB tracking from 10% to 100% (or 20% to 100%). If I want to see the effect increasing the red high end control has on the whole grayscale, I cannot do this without going to the post-cal grayscale module. Otherwise, I need to view one step at a time in the white balance or gamma modules. With ColorHCFR or CalMAN, I only need to take another grayscale run and I can see the whole grayscale update (and then decide what changes to make next). Being able to see the whole grayscale at once helps you see the big picture when using 2-pt and/or 10-pt controls and avoids the need to check each step, one by one. I don't see why this is not a part of ChromaPure or the argument for not including it.
2-pt controls obviously effect more than one point at a time and even 10-pt controls can affect surrounding steps on some displays. My point here being that grayscale controls can affect more than a single grayscale step at a time and being able to take another full set of grayscale readings and see the whole grayscale at once can save time and be more convenient than having to manually go through the steps and see only one point at a time.

There is a HUGE qualification in your description of the supposed problem: "without going to the post-cal grayscale." And just what's wrong with that? It is part of ChromaPure and I did include it.

The only way to see the effect on other points in the grayscale from making a single white balance adjustment is to re-measure whatever level or levels where you want to see the effect. It is not as though those effects just appear by themselves. So under ANY design, you will have to select a desired level of stimulus and take a new measurement. This is exactly what you do in the gamma module. You can't immediately see the effects at all levels of stim from a single white balance adjustment with any design, because the effects aren't noticeable until you remeasure, and that can only be done one level at a time. If you find a level that was affected, you correct it.

Finally, you can have two modules open at the same time. They are just one click away from each other. So the desire to see all levels at once boils down to the need for a single extra mouse click. This is what is "far more efficient"? Again, maybe I am missing something, but this seems like a infinitesimal distinction.

Having said this, providing this is a simple (and trivial) effort and will be in some form in the next major version of ChromaPure, probably in the Gamma module.

There is a HUGE qualification in your description of the supposed problem: "without going to the post-cal grayscale." And just what's wrong with that? It is part of ChromaPure and I did include it.

I can address that easily. Post-cal grayscale doesn't let you take continuous readings at a selected grayscale step and the white balance and gamma modules don't let you see the whole grayscale (RGB levels) at once. So, one must go back and forth between modules to do what you can do in CalMAN simply and seamlessly in one place (such as with the QuickView workflow in CalMANv4). The gamma module lets you see the whole gamma response at once, so why can't the white balance module show you the entire grayscale response at once? I don't see how this is not important enough to address in the near future. It was one of things that made me go back to CalMAN last year.

I can address that easily. Post-cal grayscale doesn't let you take continuous readings at a selected grayscale step and the white balance and gamma modules don't let you see the whole grayscale (RGB levels) at once. So, one must go back and forth between modules to do what you can do in CalMAN simply and seamlessly in one place (such as with the QuickView workflow in CalMANv4). The gamma module lets you see the whole gamma response at once, so why can't the white balance module show you the entire grayscale response at once? I don't see how this is not important enough to address in the near future. It was one of things that made me go back to CalMAN last year.

Since you are literally the only person who has ever mentioned this to me, I had no reason to think it was important enough for a design change. I think that you are confusing a real productivity issue with a matter of habit or personal preference.

I guess I'll be sticking with CalMAN for the foreseeable future. They seem to be more open to suggestions about feature requests (especially with v5 coming out soon) and they already have everything I need and want for grayscale/gamma calibration (except for BT.1886 support, which will be in v5).

No, just that I'm being given a hard time for suggesting a feature that should already be in there (and I received a similar response last October when I bought ChromaPure and first brought this matter up).

CalMAN offers a level of control over the existing workflows that no other calibration software I've ever used does. With v5 around the corner (and all the new functionality it should add), I see no reason not to continue using it. It's not that ChromaPure is bad software, I just greatly prefer CalMAN and it's added layer of control and customization.

No, just that I'm being given a hard time for suggesting a feature that should already be in there (and I received a similar response last October when I bought ChromaPure and first brought this matter up).
CalMAN offers a level of control over the existing workflows that no other calibration software I've ever used does. With v5 around the corner (and all the new functionality it should add), I see no reason not to continue using it. It's not that ChromaPure is bad software, I just greatly prefer CalMAN and it's added layer of control and customization.

I don't appreciate the tone of your post. I'll say this, I was never treated this way on the SpectraCal forum when suggesting tweaks to be added in future releases. Just because you don't seem to have a problem with the topic being discussed, doesn't make my feedback regarding the matter any less meaningful.

I don't appreciate the tone of your post. I'll say this, I was never treated this way on the SpectraCal forum when suggesting tweaks to be added in future releases. Just because you don't seem to have a problem with the topic being discussed, doesn't make my feedback regarding the matter any less meaningful.

Your feedback would be better presented in the ChromaPure thread or direct to ChromaPure.com support. You have made one point, several times, and this is a thread started as an effort to determine if the OP would be better off financially to hire a pro or not. Call my tone, annoyed with the repetitiveness..

No, I have not not. I made the point once and then followed-up on replies by yourself, Tom, and djams. I brought it up because it was one of the things that I felt CalMAN implemented better and the OP was asking about which software package to buy and so I gave my point of view on that. However, the kind of responses I got in regards to this point were not ideal and so I expressed my thoughts on that.

No, just that I'm being given a hard time for suggesting a feature that should already be in there (and I received a similar response last October when I bought ChromaPure and first brought this matter up).
CalMAN offers a level of control over the existing workflows that no other calibration software I've ever used does. With v5 around the corner (and all the new functionality it should add), I see no reason not to continue using it. It's not that ChromaPure is bad software, I just greatly prefer CalMAN and it's added layer of control and customization.

First, I didn't mean to give you a hard time. It just seems to me that this is such a trivial issue that your decision to use one rather than the other is based on something else rather than this, such as the perceived need for additional "control and customization", which I actually think is reasonable. There is a real trade-off between customization options and ease-of-use, and reasonable people can disagree about about the proper balance. Too many options and it becomes harder to find things and easier to screw everything up. Too few options and you lose power and functionality. My view, biased as it is, is that HCFR strikes the worst balance possible here. It offers a lot of customization options many of which, if selected, will screw up your results, while at the same time lacking a rather long list of quite basic features that prevent you from getting the most out of your efforts.

So if I sounded a little irritated it was only because I thought that you were saying one thing but really meaning something else. It is just isn't plausible that someone would base a decision on which software to use based on the difference of +- one mouse click. It is also unrealistic to expect a vendor to make a design change based on the wishes of a single individual, unless that change highlighted some need or deficiency no one had noticed before. That just isn't the case here, or at least you have not satisfactorily explained why it is the case. However, you are welcome to try again in case I am missing something or just don't understand.

Here's the thing: Let's say you adjust the grayscale at 80% and you want to know what effect that has at other levels of stimulus. How would the two approaches be different?
In the CP approach, you would go to whatever level you wanted and you would take another measurement.
In your preferred approach, you would go to whatever level you wanted and take another measurement. Exactly the same.

Ah, but you wouldn't see the effects at all of the other levels in the CP approach. Correct. However, you wouldn't see them in your preferred approach either UNTIL YOU SELECTED ALL THE OTHER LEVELS ONE-BY-ONE AND TOOK A MEASUREMENT AT EACH. But this is exactly what you do in CP as well. The ONLY difference that I can think of is that in the CP approach the RGB, xyY, and dE values are updated by the new measurement each time and you lose the previous measurement you just took. But what need is there to look at this again? You just looked at it. If you make any other change to the grayscale then everything will have to be remeasured yet again, point by point, in either approach.

The only time having all of the measurements together at the same time is important is at the very end of the calibration process when all adjustments are complete and you are ready to generate a report. You would want to review your data to ensure that it all met expectations before saying, "Yes, I am finished." CP segregates this last step from the calibration process itself as a matter of design.

Finally, as I said previously, since this is such a small issue and it certainly doesn't hurt anything, it would be easy enough to add, so we will provide something along these lines in the next major release.

First, I didn't mean to give you a hard time. It just seems to me that this is such a trivial issue that your decision to use one rather than the other is based on something else rather than this, such as the perceived need for additional "control and customization", which I actually think is reasonable. There is a real trade-off between customization options and ease-of-use, and reasonable people can disagree about about the proper balance. Too many options and it becomes harder to find things and easier to screw everything up. Too few options and you lose power and functionality. My view, biased as it is, is that HCFR strikes the worst balance possible here. It offers a lot of customization options many of which, if selected, will screw up your results, while at the same time lacking a rather long list of quite basic features that prevent you from getting the most out of your efforts.
So if I sounded a little irritated it was only because I thought that you were saying one thing but really meaning something else. It is just isn't plausible that someone would base a decision on which software to use based on the difference of +- one mouse click. It is also unrealistic to expect a vendor to make a design change based on the wishes of a single individual, unless that change highlighted some need or deficiency no one had noticed before. That just isn't the case here, or at least you have not satisfactorily explained why it is the case. However, you are welcome to try again in case I am missing something or just don't understand.
Here's the thing: Let's say you adjust the grayscale at 80% and you want to know what effect that has at other levels of stimulus. How would the two approaches be different?
In the CP approach, you would go to whatever level you wanted and you would take another measurement.
In your preferred approach, you would go to whatever level you wanted and take another measurement. Exactly the same.
Ah, but you wouldn't see the effects at all of the other levels in the CP approach. Correct. However, you wouldn't see them in your preferred approach either UNTIL YOU SELECTED ALL THE OTHER LEVELS ONE-BY-ONE AND TOOK A MEASUREMENT AT EACH. But this is exactly what you do in CP as well. The ONLY difference that I can think of is that in the CP approach the RGB, xyY, and dE values are updated by the new measurement each time and you lose the previous measurement you just took. But what need is there to look at this again? You just looked at it. If you make any other change to the grayscale then everything will have to be remeasured yet again, point by point, in either approach.
The only time having all of the measurements together at the same time is important is at the very end of the calibration process when all adjustments are complete and you are ready to generate a report. You would want to review your data to ensure that it all met expectations before saying, "Yes, I am finished." CP segregates this last step from the calibration process itself as a matter of design.
Finally, as I said previously, since this is such a small issue and it certainly doesn't hurt anything, it would be easy enough to add, so we will provide something along these lines in the next major release.

I don't want to get into too much detail here, but yes, my preference for CalMAN has to do with more than just this one issue I had with the ChromaPure software (which I still own but have no licensed meters for currently, just a C6). It mainly has to do with the increased level of customization and general control over the software that CalMAN offers. This can add an added level of complexity for new users or those who just want to stick with the default or recommended settings/preferences, but once you get the hang of it, some users like myself prefer that extra level of control. I like being to update the entire set of grayscale readings after making any change (especially when working with 2 or 1-point grayscale controls) and also being able to take continuous readings at any given point I wish to, all within a single page of the workflow (CalMAN) or within a single module (ChromaPure). To me, having to use a second module (especially one indicated as a post-cal module) doesn't make sense if one is looking for the most convenient and efficient approach and the fact that it's in the post-cal section of modules seems a bit incongruous (at least to me). To be fair, it's not a major issue, but would certainly be a welcome addition in my opinion.

I've just read this thread and think I know the answer to my question but it's always better to ask those who are experienced.

I bought a Spyder4Elite from Amazon when it was $180 and I bought a Spyder4TV upgrade from elsewhere for around $70 but that one hasn't shipped yet. Should I cancel the Spyder4TV upgrade and put that money towards CalMAN?

I presume CalMAN will still work with devices which they don't sell eg the Spyder4Elite I've already purchased?

Ack your advice that XRite D3 is the way to go, problem is the Spyder4Elite is already inbound so returning it I'd be out of pocket for forwarding costs from the US and to the US.
I have the Spyder4TV upgrade on order which I presume is redundant if I use CalMAN. I was wondering if that was the case because if so I'll cancel the order.

Correct CalMAN will talk with the Spyder4 you have so no need for the Spyder4TV upgrade.